Weapons as special effects

[John Q. Mayhem]

I noticed a while back that you can't make a rapier with this system, at least not at the Improved Combat Proficiency level. Is that a problem, do you think? I don't think it was intentional. I also don't really think that finessable is worth a damage die drop.

 

[DanMcS]

There is something I would love to see though, which I think your system could accomodate even though standard D&D does not... a differentiation between blunt, slashing, and peircing.

There is a real cinematic difference in feel between these types, but almost no mechanical differences at all, and this bothers me. Yes, I know that heros use whatever they have on hand equally well, but they do it in different -ways-. And besides... swords were made for killing people. There's a reason Samurai went into battle with Katana instead of Boken (Bokken?). Under these rules, there'd be no real difference.

That was pretty much the goal, to not have the weapons be at all different, just the users.

Musashi is famed for having grown to such mastery in dueling that he stopped bothering to fight with a sword, and killed his opponents using a wooden practice sword and, in one case, an oar from a rowboat.

 

[DanMcS]

I noticed a while back that you can't make a rapier with this system, at least not at the Improved Combat Proficiency level. Is that a problem, do you think? I don't think it was intentional. I also don't really think that finessable is worth a damage die drop.

A rapier is kind of a wierd weapon, with several exceptional qualities. It's one-handed but finessable, and (like a light weapon) can't be used two-handed for extra strength damage. That's going to make it hard to do in any generic framework. In that way, it's like a spiked chain, which you can't build in this system until greater combat proficiency I think.

At improved combat proficiency, you start at 2d6 20/x3 with a one-handed piercing sword. You can make that 1d8 18-20/x2 by the "drop a die to increase critical" and "18-20/x2 is equivalent to 20/x4" rules, and then add finessable for 1d6 18-20/x2. You now have basically a rapier, except it's still a stock one-handed use so the 'can't be used two-handed for extra damage' thing isn't there.

You could also use a light piercing sword, so it would start out at 1d8 20/x3, and then shift damage and crits around to get 1d6 18-20/x2 again, this time with the "light" set of weapon attributes.

So you can't really recreate a rapier using Combat Proficiency, but you can at the Improved level.

In general, I said everything that was an advantage should be a quality that reduces damage on the scale. Being able to use a melee weapon with dex instead of strength is an advantage, so it knocks down damage.

If you don't agree with that for finesse, you're probably also one of the people that thinks all weapons should use dex to-hit and strength for damage. That would be a variation in straight D&D, and it would be a perfectly acceptable variation for this kind of rule, too.

 

[Ferrix]

Cool system, would be fun if someone ran a game with it.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

In general, I said everything that was an advantage should be a quality that reduces damage on the scale. Being able to use a melee weapon with dex instead of strength is an advantage, so it knocks down damage.

Yes, but being able to take a feat to use your Dex instead of Str is pretty pitiful. I think that I'll use Rule 0 here and say that the "no 2-hands for pwr attack and 1.5 Str" balances finesse, and probably use something similar for other weapons like that. A die drop for finesse does sound about right for 2-handed weapons, though.

If you don't agree with that for finesse, you're probably also one of the people that thinks all weapons should use dex to-hit and strength for damage. That would be a variation in straight D&D, and it would be a perfectly acceptable variation for this kind of rule, too.

Not really, no. I just think that Finesse isn't worth the damage you sacrifice, except maybe at high levels.

Note: I meant Combat Proficiency, not improved, sorry.

 

[DanMcS]

Yes, but being able to take a feat to use your Dex instead of Str is pretty pitiful.

You think? In the game I play in on sundays, it's worth about +4 to-hit for the two characters that have it (at mid-levels, 10+ or so). Doesn't seem too pitiful to me.

I think that I'll use Rule 0 here and say that the "no 2-hands for pwr attack and 1.5 Str" balances finesse, and probably use something similar for other weapons like that. A die drop for finesse does sound about right for 2-handed weapons, though.

I was pondering something like that, having a flawed version that worked that way. It would really only be necessary to recreate rapiers, though, which is why I thought that an exception for such an outlying case wasn't necessary.

Maybe it should work like that for all one-handed weapons (apply finessable, you can't two-hand it for extra damage but your damage doesn't drop), we don't really have any other weapons for comparision. Wait, there was an exotic rapier (fullblade?) in Sword and Fist that did a d8 I think; you couldn't two-hand it, could you? I don't remember.

Then heavy weapons have to take the damage hit, but keep their strength and power-attacking bonus (which, in my head, comes mostly from leverage). Finessable for heavy weapons shouldn't show up until greater combat proficiency, maybe.

Note: I meant Combat Proficiency, not improved, sorry.

Ah. Then my long explanation of how it was actually possible wasn't necessary.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Yup, the weapon you refer to is the Elven thinblade; a pretty nifty weapon actually. The Fullblade is a Large bastard sword (in 3.5). Re-reading my post, this bit

Yes, but being able to take a feat to use your Dex instead of Str is pretty pitiful.

Is not clear. I meant that dropping the damage so you could take a feat to use Dex was bad, not that Weapon Finesse itself was.

Maybe it should work like that for all one-handed weapons (apply finessable, you can't two-hand it for extra damage but your damage doesn't drop), we don't really have any other weapons for comparision. Wait, there was an exotic rapier (fullblade?) in Sword and Fist that did a d8 I think; you couldn't two-hand it, could you? I don't remember.

Then heavy weapons have to take the damage hit, but keep their strength and power-attacking bonus (which, in my head, comes mostly from leverage). Finessable for heavy weapons shouldn't show up until greater combat proficiency, maybe.

That sounds good. The thinblade was reprinted for 3.5 in CW; let me check.
Nope, no mention of thinblade not used 2-handed.

Another question: How would you handle bastard/hand-and-a-half swords in this system? I see that you have one given as an example for Improved Proficiency, but that's still the same as a longsword. Maybe they should be able to be used as medium or heavy weapons with a grip change? So a proficient wielder could use one 1-handed for 1d8 19-20/x2, or 2-handed for 2d6 19-20/x2.

 

[DanMcS]

Another question: How would you handle bastard/hand-and-a-half swords in this system? I see that you have one given as an example for Improved Proficiency, but that's still the same as a longsword. Maybe they should be able to be used as medium or heavy weapons with a grip change? So a proficient wielder could use one 1-handed for 1d8 19-20/x2, or 2-handed for 2d6 19-20/x2.

I wouldn't differentiate. It's either a one-handed slashing sword, or a heavy slashing sword. I think three categories of weapon size is enough, without adding intermediate ones; heavy exotic weapons like the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe were a needless complication to the system, I think.

A one-handed weapon can already be used two-handed, and gets 1.5 str bonus. If they want to do extra damage with it, Improved Combat Proficiency boosts the damage die.

I don't think the hand-and-a-half sword is a problem, really, since it's a difference between a 2 pound 24" blade and a 3 pound 28" blade in real life, or something similar. I'm trying to get rid of mechanical distinctions, not recreate the original system, warts and all.

 

[dead_radish]

To start: Holy jebus, I love this system. I doubt I'd be able to finagle my group in to using it, but wow. It smacks greatly of ADnD prof., which I'm assuming was deliberate.

Here are my concerns: I haven't run over the mechanics too much, though they seem excellently well done. I am concerned by the fact that you base these abilities strictly on fighter level, though. That creates a lot of conflict in my mind. First off, I play AU, not 3.X, so there's not even a fighter to consider. I hate to think that, say, a mageblade is restricted from taking this. I'd prefer to see something along the lines of a BAB requirement, with fighters getting these for free at relevant levels. That way if Wally Wizard really wants to be a bad-aspirin with his q-staff, he can take Improved at level 12, when he has +6 bab. If Mikey the Mageblade wants to, he can add it, but he's not as good as the straight fighter, since he's getting magic enhancements.

There's also the concern that under this system, you would give up a chunk by taking a PrC. Flavorfully, moving to the Weapon Master PrC shouldn't make you *less* effective with a weapon than a warrior. And unless you're willing to revamp every PrC out there, it would be easier to look at the above BAB type requirements....

And let me re-iterate: Wow. Incredible job. Those descriptions of the various combats were just amazing.

Is there anyone out there interested in an Arena Fight type PbP game to test some of these rules out, and play around with them? I'd play, but not run, because I'm swamped.

 

[SSquirrel]

To start: Holy jebus, I love this system. I doubt I'd be able to finagle my group in to using it, but wow. It smacks greatly of ADnD prof., which I'm assuming was deliberate.

Heh I said the exact same thing when Ken Hood revised his Grim n Gritty rules and I helped with tweaking it some. I tried to explain it to my group and I even wanted to use it for an AU campaign but the group was kinda skeptical and then the group spectacularly disintegrated during 2 seperate divorce cases so yeah.

I also agree that if you switch this system to non-standard D&D it should just be a BAB requirement. I know part of the idea is to make sure that Fighters are better combatants at heart than other classes, but the yhave all those extra bonus feats. They will likely have ALL of the related combat feats here and you'll have Wizards, Thieves etc who maybe pick up one level and go no farther.

Hagen